[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pmblck9c.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:45:10 +0100
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...udflare.com, kuba@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] selftests/net: Cover the
IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE socket option
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:25 AM +09, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:37:30 +0100
>> Exercise IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE socket option in various scenarios:
>>
>> 1. pass invalid values to setsockopt
>> 2. pass a range outside of the per-netns port range
>> 3. configure a single-port range
>> 4. exhaust a configured multi-port range
>> 5. check interaction with late-bind (IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT)
>> 6. set then get the per-socket port range
>>
>> v1 -> v2:
>> * selftests: Instead of iterating over socket families (ip4, ip6) and types
>> (tcp, udp), generate tests for each combo from a template. This keeps the
>> code indentation level down and makes tests more granular.
>
> We can use TEST_F(), FIXTURE_VARIANT() and FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD() for
> such cases.
>
> e.g.) tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
Just what I need. Thank you for pointing me to it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists